No property in man : speech of Hon. Charles Sumner, on the proposed amendment of the Constitution abolishing slavery through the United States

33

LOYAL PUBLICATION SOCIETY,

863 BROADWAY.

JTo. 51.

NO PROPERTY IN MAN.

SPEECH OF

Hon. CHARLES SUMNER,

ON THE

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION ABOLISHING SLAVERY
THROUGH THE UNITED STATES.

In the Senate of the United States, April 8th, 1864.

NEW YORK ;
Published by the Loyal Publication Society.

1 8C4

Loyal Leagues, Clubs, or individuals may obtain
any of our Publications at the cost price, by application to
the Executive Committee, or by calling at the Rooms of the
Society, No. 863 Broadway, where all information may be
obtained relating to the Society.

u

NO PROPERTY IN MAN."

SPEECH OF

HON. CHARLES SUMNER,

ON THE

Proposed Amendment of the Constitution Abolishing Slavery
through the United States.

m THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 8, 1864.

" May not Congress pronounce all slaves free ? The Constitution speaks to the
point. They have the power in clear and unequivocal terms, and will dearly and certainly
exercise it. — Patrick Henry.

Mr. SUMNER. Mr. President, if an angel from the skies or
a stranger from another planet were permitted to visit this earth
and to examine its surface, who can doubt that his eyes would rest
with astonishment upon the outstretched extent and exhaustless
resources of this Republic of the New World, young in years but
already rooted beyond any dynasty in history? In proportion as
he consiiered and understood all those things among us which
enter into and constitute the national life, his astonishment would
increase, for he would find a numerous people, powerful beyond
precedent, without a king or a noble, but with the schoolmaster
instead. And yet the astonishment which he confessed, as all
these things appeared before him, would swell into marvel as he
learned that in this Republic, which had arrested his admiration,
where there was neither king nor noble, but the schoolmaster in-
stead, there were four million human beings in abject bondage,
degraded to be chattels, under the pretense of property in man,
driven by the lash like beasts, despoiled of all rights, even the

right to knowledge and the sacred right of family ; so that the
relation of husband and wife was impossible and no parent could
claim his own child; while all were condemned to brutish igno-
rance. Startled by what he beheld, the stranger would naturally
inquire by what authority, under what sanction, and through what
terms of law or Constitution, this fearful inconsistency, so shock-
ing to human nature itself, continued to be upheld. But bis
growing astonishment would know no bounds, when he was pointed
to the Constitution of the United States, as the final guardian and
conservator of this peculiar and many-headed wickedness.

"And is it true," the stranger would exclaim, "that in laying
the foundations of this Republic, dedicated to human rights, all
these wrongs have been positively established ?" He would ask
to see that Constitution and to know the fatal words by which
the sacrifice was commanded. The trembling with which he be-
gan its perusal would be succeeded by joy as he finished it ; for
he would find nothing in that golden text, not a single sentence,
phrase, or word even, to serve as origin, authority, or apology,
for the outrage. And then his astonishment, already knowing no
bounds, would break forth anew, as he exclaimed, " Shameful and
irrational as is slavery, it is not more shameful or irrational than
that unsupported interpretation which undertakes to make your
Constitution the final guardian and conservator of this terrible
and unpardonable denial of human rights."

Such a stranger as I have described, coming from afar, with
eyes which no local bias had distorted, and with understanding
which no local custom had disturbed, would naturally see the
Constitution precisely as it is in its actual text, and he would in-
terpret it in its true sense, without prepossession or prejudice. —
Of course he would know, what all jurisprudence teaches and
what all reason confirms, that human rights cannot be taken away
by any indirection or by any vain imagining of something that
was intended but was not said, and, as a natural consequence, that
slavery can exist — if exist it can at all — only by virtue of a posi-
tive text, and that what is true of slavery is true also of all its
incidents ; and the enlightened stranger would insist that in all
interpretation of the Constitution, that cardinal principal must
never for a moment be out of mind, but must be kept ever forward
as guide and master, that slavery cannot stand on inference, nor can
any support of slavery stand on inference. Thus informed, and
in the light of a pervasive principle,

" How far that little candle throws its beams !"'

he would peruse the Constitution from beginning to end, from its
opening preamble to its final amendment, and then the joyful
opinion would be given.

There are three things which he would observe : first and fore-
most, that the dismal words " slave " and " slavery " do not ap-
pear in the Constitution ; so that if the unnatural pretension of
property in man lurk anywhere in that text, it is under a feigned
name or an alias, which of itself is cause of suspicion, while an
imperative rule renders its recognition impossible. Next, he
would consider the preamble, which is the key to open the whole
succeeding instrument; but here no single word can be found
which does not open the Constitution to freedom and close it to
slavery. The object of the Constitution is announced to be "in
order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure do-
mestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves
and our posterity;" all of which, in every particular, is absolutely
inconsistent with slavery. And thirdly, he would observe those
time-honored, most efficacious, chain-breaking words in the Amend-
ments : " No person shall be deprived of life, liberty ', or property,
without due process of law" Scorning all false interpretations
and glosses which may have been fastened upon the Constitution
as a support of slavery, and with these three things before him,
he would naturally declare that there was nothing in the original
text on which this hideous wrong could be founded anywhere
within the sphere of its operation. With astonishment he would
ask again by what strange delusion or hallucination the reason
had been so far overcome as to recognize slavery in the Constitu-
tion, when plainly it is not there, and cannot be there ? The
answer is humiliating, but it is easy.

People naturally find in texts of Scripture the support of their
own religious opinions or prejudices ; and, in the same way, they
naturally find in texts of the Constitution the support of their
own political opinions or prejudices. And this may not be in
either case because Scripture or Constitution, when truly interpre-
ted, support these opinions or prejudices ; but because people are
apt to find in texts simply a reflection of themselves. Most
clearly and indubitably, whoever finds any support of slavery in
the Constitution of the United States has first found such support
in himself; not that he will hesitate, perhaps, to condemn slavery
in words of approved gentleness, but because from unhappy edu-
cation or more unhappy insensibility to this wrong, he has already
' conceded to it a certain traditional foothold of immunity, which
he straightway transfers from himself to the Constitution. In
dealing with this subject, it is not the Constitution, so much as
human nature itself, which has been at fault. Let the people
change, and the Constitution will change also ; for the Constitu-
tion is but the shadow, while the people are the substance.

6

But under the influence of the present struggle for national
life, and in obedience to its incessant exigencies, the people have
already changed, and in nothing so much as slavery. Old opin-
ions and prejudices have dissolved, and that traditional foothold
which slavery once possessed has been gradually weakened until
now it scarcely exists. Naturally this change must sooner or
later show itself in the interpretation of the Constitution. But
it is already visible even there, in the concession of powers over
slavery which were formerly denied. The time, then, has come
when the Constitution, which has been so long interpreted for
slavery, may be interpreted for freedom. This is one stage of tri-
umph. Universal emancipation, which is at hand, can be won
only by complete emancipation of the Constitution itself, which
has been degraded to wear chains so long that its real character
is scarcely known.

Sometimes the concession is made on the ground of military
necessity. The capacious war powers of the Constitution are in-
voked, and it is said that in their legitimate exercise slavery may
be destroyed. There is much in this concession; more even than
is imagined by many from whom it proceeds. It is war, say they,
which puts these powers in motion ; for they forget that wherever
slavery exists there is perpetual war — that slavery itself is a state
of war between two races, where one is for the moment victor —
pictured accurately by Jefferson when he described it as " permit-
ting one half of the citizens to trample on the rights of the other,
transforming those into enemies, and these into despots." There-
fore, wherever slavery exists, even in seeming peace, the war pow-
ers may be invoked to put an end to a condition which is interne-
cine, and to overthrow pretensions which are hostile to every at-
tribute of the Almighty.

But it is not on military necessity alone that the concession is
made. There are many who, as they read the Constitution now,
see its powers dver slavery more clearly than before. The old
superstition is abandoned ; and they join with Patrick Henry
when, in the Virginia convention, he declared the power of manu-
mission was given to Congress. He did not hesitate to argue
against the adoption of the Constitution because it gave this
power. . And shall we be less perspicacious for freedom than this
Virginia statesman was for slavery ? Discerning this power he
confessed his dismay ; but let us confess our joy.

We have already seen that slavery can find no support in the
Constitution. Glance now at the positive provisions by which it
is brought completely under the control of Congress.

11 First among the powers of Congress and associated with
the power to lay and collect taxes, is that " to provide for the

common defence and general welfare." It has been questioned
whether this is a substantive power, or simply incident to that with
which it is associated. But it seems difficult, if not absurd, to
insist that Congress has not this substantive power. Shall it not
provide for the common defence? Shall it not provide for the
general welfare ? If it cannot do these things in a great crisis
it had better abdicate. In the discussions on the Constitution in
the Virginia convention, Mr. George Mason, one of its most de-
cided opponents, said : " That Congress should have power to pro-
vide for the general welfare of the Union, i" grant" (2 Eliot's
Debates, 327.) But the language of Patrick Henry, to which
allusion has been already made, was still more explicit. He fore-
saw that this power would naturally be directed against slavery,
and he said :

" Slavery is detested. We feel its fatal effects. We deplore
it with all the pity of humanity. Let all these considerations,
at some future period, press with full force on the minds of Con-
gress. Let that urbanity which, I trust, will distinguish Ameri-
cans, and the necessity of national defence — let all these things
operate on their minds; they will search that paper [the Constitu-
tion] and see if they have the power of manumission. And have
they not, sir ? Have they not the power to provide for the general
defence and welfare / May they not think that they call for the
abolition of slavery ? May they not pronounce all the slaves free ?
And will they not be warranted by that power ? This is no am-
biguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the
point. They have the power in clear and unequivocal terms, and will
clearly and certainly exercise it." — Eliotfs Debates, vol. 3. p. 590.

Language could not be more positive. To all who ask for the
power of Congress over slavery, here is a sufficient answer ; and
remember that this is not my speech, but the speech of Patrick
Henry, who says that the Constitution " speaks to the point."

2. Next comes the clause, " Congress shall have power to de-
clare war; to raise and support armies ; to provide and maintain
a navy." A power like this is from its very nature unlimited. —
In raising and supporting an army, in providing and maintaining
a navy, Congress is not restrained to any particular class or color.
It may call upon all and authorize that contract which the Govern-
ment makes with an enlisted soldier. But such a contract would
be in itself an act of manumission ; for a slave cannot make a
contract. And if the contract be followed by actual service, who
can deny its completest efficiency in enfranchising the soldier-
slave and his whole family? Shakspeare, immortal teacher, gives
expression to an instinctive sentiment when he makes Henry V?

on the eve of the battle of Agincourt, encourages his men by pro-
mising,

" For he to-day that sheds his blood with me,
Shall be my brother ; be he ne'er so vile.
This day shall gentle his condition."

3. There is still another clause: "The United States shall
guaranty to every state in this Uuion a republican form of govern-
ment." There again is a plain duty. But the question recurs,
what is a republican form of government ? John Adams, in the
correspondence of his old age, says :

" The customary meanings of the words republic and common-
wealth have been infinite. They have been applied to every Gov-
ernment under heaven ; that of Turkey and that of Spain, as weir
as that of Athens and of Rome, of Geneva and San Marino." —
John Adam's Works, volume 10, page 378.

But the guarantee of a republican form of government must
have a meaning congenial with the purposes of the Constitution,
If a Government like that of Turkey, or even like that of Venice,
could come within the scope of this guarantee, it would be of little
value. It would be words and nothing more. Evidently it must
be construed so as to uphold the Constitution according to all the
promises of its preamble, and Mr. Madison has left a record, first
published to the Senate by the distinguished Senator from Ver-
mont, [Mr. Collamer,] the chairman of the Committee on the
Library, showing that it was originally suggested in part by the
fear of slavery, so that in construing it we must not forget slavery.
The preamble and the record are important, disclosing the real
intention of this guarantee. But no American need be at a loss
to designate some of the distinctive elements of a republic ac-
cording to the idea of American institutions. These will be
found, first, in the Declaration of Independence, by which it is
solemnly announced " that all men are endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable rights ; that among these are life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness." And they will be found, secondly,
in that other guarantee and prohibition of the Constitution, in
harmony with the Declaration of Independence ; " No person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law "
Such are some of the essential elements of a " republican form of
government," which cannot be disowned by us without disowning
the very muniments of our liberties ; and it is these which the
United States are bound to guaranty. But all these make
slavery impossible. It is idle to say that this result was not an-
ticipated. It would be, then, only another illustration that our
fathers " builded wiser than they knew."

4. But, independent of the clause of guarantee, there is the
clause Just quoted, which in itself is a source of power : "No per-

9

son shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property witlwut due pro-
cess of law." This was a part of the amendments to the Constitu-
tion proposed by the First Congress, under the popular demand
for a Bill of Rights. Though brief, it is in itself alone a whole
Bill of Rights. Liberty can be lost only by " due process of law,"
words borrowed from the old liberty-loving common law, illustra-
ted by our master in law, Lord Coke, but best explained by the
late Mr. Justice Bronson, of New York, in a judicial opinion
where he says :

" The meaning of the section then seems to be, that no member
of the State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of his rights or
privileges unless the matter shall be adjudged against him upon
trial had according to the course of common law. The words
; due process of law ' in this place cannot mean less than a prose-
cution or suit instituted and conducted according to the prescribed
forms and solemnities for ascertaining guilt or determining the
title to property." — 4 Hill's Reports, 146.

Such is the protection which is thrown by the Constitution oyer
every " person," without distinction of race or color, class or
condition. There can be no doubt about the universality of this
protection. All, without exception, come within its scope. Its
natural meaning is plain ; but there is an incident of history
which makes it plainer still, excluding all possibility of misconcep-
tion. A clause of this character was originally recommended as
an amendment by two slave States, North Carolina and Yirginia,
but it was restrained by them to freemen, thus : " No freemen
ought to be deprived of his life, liberty, or property but by the
law of the land." But, when the recommendation came before
Congress, the word " person " was substituted for " freemen," and
the more searching phrase " due process of law " was substituted
for e< the law of the land." In making this change, rejecting the
recommendation of two slave States, the authors of this amend-
ment revealed their purpose, that no person wearing the human
form should be deprived of liberty without due process of law ;
and the proposition was adopted by the votes of Congress and
then of the States as a part of the Constitution. Clearly on its
face it is an express guarantee of personal liberty and an express
prohibition against its invasion anywhere.

In the face of this guarantee and prohibition — for it is both —
how can any " person " be held as a slave ? But it is sometimes
said that this provision must be restrained to places within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the national Government. Let me say
frankly that such formerly was my own impression, often avowed
in this Chamber : but I never doubted its complete efficacy to ren-
der slavery unconstitutional in all such places, so that u no per-

* 10

son" could be held as a slave at the national Capitol or in any
national territory. Constitutionally slavery has always been an
outlaw wherever that provision of the Constitution was applica-
ble. Nobody doubted that it was binding on the national courts,
and yet it was left unexecuted — a dead letter, killed by the pre-
dominant influence of slavery, until at last Congress was obliged
by legislative act to do what the courts had failed to do, and to
put an end to slavery in the national Capitol and national terri-
tories.

But there are no words in this guarantee and prohibition by
which they are restrained to any exclusive jurisdiction. They
are broad and general as the Constitution itself; and since they
are in support of human rights they cannot be restrained by any
interpretation. There is no limitation in them, and nobody can sup-
ply any such limitation, without encountering the venerable max-
im of law, Impius et crudelis qui libertati non favet — (i Impious
and cruel is he who does not favor liberty." Long enough courts
and . Congress have merited this condemnation. The time has
come when they should merit it no longer. The Constitution
should become a living letter under the predominant influence of
freedom. It is this conviction which has brought petitioners to
Congress, during the present session, asking that the Constitution
shall be simply executed against slavery and not altered. Ah !
sir, it would be a glad sight to see that Constitution, which we
have all sworn to support, interpreted generously, nobly, glorious-
ly for freedom, so that everywhere within its influence the chains
should drop from the slave. If it be said that this was not anti-
cipated at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, I remind
you of the words of Patrick Henry at the time when he said,
" the paper speaks to the point." No doubt. It does speak to
the point, especially since the adoption of the amendments.
Cicero preferred to err with Plato rather than to think right with
other men. And pardon me if on this occasion, when my country
is in peril from slavery, and when human rights are to be rescued,
I prefer to err with Patrick Henry, in assuming power for fr ee-
dom, rather than to think right with Senators who hesitate in
such a cause.

Mr. President, thus stands the case. There is nothing in the
Constitution on which slavery can rest, or find any the least sup-
port. Even on the face of that instrument it is an outlaw; but if
we look further into its provisions we find at least four distinct
sources of power, which, if executed, must render slavery impos-
sible, while the preamble makes them all vital for freedom : first,
the power to provide for the common defense and general welfare;
secondly, the power to raise armies and maintain navies; thirdly t

11

the power to guaranty to every State a republican form of gov-
ernment ; and fourthly, the power to secure liberty to every per-
son restrained without due process of law. Bat all these provis-
ions are something more than powers ; they are duties also. And
yet we are constantly and painfully reminded in this Chamber
that pending measures against slavery are unconstitutional. Sir,
this is an immense mistake. Nothing against slavery can be uncon-
stitutional. It is only hesitation which is unconstitutional.

And yet slavery still exists — in defiance of all these requirements
of the Constitution ; nay, more, in defiance of reason and justice^
which can never be disobeyed with impunity — it exists, the per-
petual spoiler of human rights and disturber of the public peace,
degrading master as well as slave, corrupting society, weakening
Government, impoverishing the very soil itself, and impairing the
natural resources of the country. Such an outrage, so offensive in
every respect, not only to the Constitution, but also to the whole
system of order by which the universe is governed, is plainly a
national nuisance, which, for the general welfare, and the name of
justice, ought to be abated. But at this moment, when it menaces
the national life, it will not be enough to treat slavery merely as
a nuisance, for it is much more. It is a public enemy and traitor
wherever it shows itself, to be subdued, in the discharge of solemn
guarantees of Government and of personal rights, and in the ex-
ercise of unquestionable and indefeasable rights of self-defense.
All now admit that in the rebel States it is a public enemy and
traitor, so that the rebellion may be seen in slavery, and slavery
may be seen in the rebellion. But slavery throughout the coun-
try, everywhere within the national limits, is a living unit, one and
indivisible — so that even outside the rebel States it is the same
public enemy and traitor, lending succor to the rebellion, and
holding out "blue lights" to encourage and direct its operations.
But whether regarded as national nuisance or as public enemy
and traitor, it is obnoxious to the same judgment and must be
abolished.

If, in abolishing slavery, any injury were done to the just
interests of any human being, or to any rights of any kind, there
might be something " to give us pause," even against these irre-
sistible requirements. But nothing of the kind can ensue. No
just interests and no rights can suffer. It is the rare felicity of
such an act, as well outside as inside the rebel States, that, while
striking a blow at the rebellion, and assuring future tranquility,
so that the Republic shall no longer be a house divided against
itself, it will add at once to the value of the whole fee simple
wherever slavery exists, will secure individual rights, and will
advance civilization itself.

12

There is another motive to abolish slavery at this time. Em-
battled armies now stand face to face, on the one side fighting for
slavery. The gauntlet that has been flung down we have yet
taken up only in part. In abolishing slavery entirely we take up
the gauntlet entirely. Then we can look with confidence to the
blessings of Almighty God apon our arms. " ' Till America comes
into this measure," said John Jay during the Revolution, "her
prayers to Heaven will be impious." So long as we sustain
slavery, so long as we hesitate to strike at it, the heavy battalions
of our armies will fail in power. Sir Giles Overreach found his
sword, as he attempted to draw it, " glued with orphan's tears."
Let not our soldiers find their swords "glued" with the tears of
the slave.

There is one question and only one which rises in our path ; and
this only because the national representatives have so long been
drugged and drenched with slavery, which they have taken in all
forms, whether of dose or douche, that, like a long-suffering pa-
tient, thqy are not yet emancipated from its influence. I refer, of
course, to the question of compensation under the shameful as-
sumption that there can be property in man. Sir, there was a
moment when I was willing to pay money largely, or at least to
any reasonable amount, for emancipation ; but it was as ransom,
and never as compensation. Thank God! that time has now
passed, neA^er to return; and simply because money is no longer
needed for the purpose. Our fathers, under Washington, never
paid the Alger ines for the emancipation of our enslaved fellow-
citizens, except as ransom, and they ceased all such tribute when
emancipation could be had without it. Such must be our rule
now. Any other rule would be to impoverish the Treasury for
nothing. The time has come for the old tocsin to sound, 4C Mil-
lions for defense, not a cent for tribute." Ay, sir ; millions of
dollars — with millions of strong arras also — to defend our country
against slave-masters; but not a cent for tribute to slave-
masters.

But if money is to be paid as compensation, clearly it cannot
go to the master, who for generations has robbed the slave of his
toil and all its fruits, so that, in justice, he may be regarded now
as the trustee of accumulated earnings with interest which he has
never paid over. Any money paid as compensation must belong,
every dollar of it, to the slave. If the case were audited in
Heaven's chancery, there must be another allowance for the denial
of inestimable rights. The loss of wages may be estimated, but
where is the tariff or price-current by which those other losses
which have been the lot of every slave shall be determined ?
Mortal arithmetic is impotent to assess the fearful sum total. In

13

presence of this infinite responsibility the whole question must be
referred to that other tribunal where master and slave will be
equal, whili infinite wisdom tempers justice with mercy.

But the proposition of compensation is founded on the intolerable
assumption of property in man, an idea which often intrudes into
these debates, sometimes from its open vindicators and sometimes
from others, who reluctantly recognize it, but allow it to influence
their conduct which is thus " sicklied o'er " with slavery. Sir,
parliamentary law must be observed ; but if an outburst of indig-
nant hisses were ever justiable in a parliamentary assembly it
ought to break forth at every mention of this proposition, what-
ever form it may take — whether of daring assumption, or the
mildest suggestion, or equivocation even. Impious toward God
and insulting toward man, it is disowned alike by the conscience
and the reason ; nor is there any softness of argument or phrase by
which its essential wickedness can be disguised. The fool hath
said in his heart that there is no God; but it is kindred folly to-
say that there is no Man. The first is Atheism, and the second is
like unto the first.

Foremost of all persons in history who have vindicated human
liberty, and associated their names with, it forevermore, stands
John Milton, the Secretary of Oliver Cromwell and the author of
Paradise Lost. Cradled under a lawless royalty, he helped to
found and support the English Commonwealth, while in all that
he wrote he pleaded for human rights now in defense of the Eng-
lish people, who had beheaded their king, and now in immortal
poems which show how wisely and well he loved the cause which
he had made his own. Nowhere has the assumption of property
in man been encountered more completely, than in the conversa-
tion between the Archangel and Adam, after the former had pic-
tured a hunter whose game was "men, not beasts :"

" O execrable Son ! so to aspire

Above his brethren, to himself assuming
Authority usurped, from God Dot given !
He gave us only over beast, fish, fowl,
Dominion absolute ; that right we hold
By His donation; but man over men
He made not Lord, such title to Himself
Reserving, human left from human free.

Paradise Lost, Book Twelve — 64 — 73.

But every asserter of property in man puts himself in the very
place of this hunter of " men, not beasts," who is described as
" execrable son so to aspire." The language is strong, but not too
strong. "Execrable" is the assumption ; "execrable" wherever
made ; " execrable " on the plantation ; " execrable" in this cham-
ber; " execrable" in all its forms; " execrable" in all its conse-
quences; especially "execrable" as an apology for hesitation
against slavery. The assumption, wherever it shows itself, must

14

like Satan himself, in whom it has its origin, be beaten down
ander our feet.

Again, we are brought by learned Senators to theJJonstitution,
which requires that there shall be " just compensation " where
" private property" is taken for public use. But plainly on the
present ocasion the requirement of the Constitution is absolutely
inapplicable, for there is no " private property" to take. Slavery
is but a bundle of barbarous pretensions, from which certain per-
sons are to be released. At what price shall these pretensions be
estimated? How much shall be paid for the controlling preten-
sion of property in man ? How much shall be allowed for that
other pretension to shut the gates of knowledge, aad keep the
victim from the Book of Life? How much shall be expended to
redeem the pretension to rob a human being of all the fruits of
his toil? And, sir, what "just compensation" shall be voted for
the renunciation of that Heaven- defying pretension, too disgust-
ing to picture, which, trampling on the most sacred relations,
makes M wife and child the wretched prey of lust or avarice?
Let these pretensions be renounced, and slavery ceases to exist ;
but there can be no " just compensation" for any such renuncia-
tion. The human heart, reason, religion, the Constitution itself,
rise in judgment against it. As well vote "just compensation ''
to the hardened offender who renounces his disobedience to the
Ten Commandments, and promises that he will cease to steal —
that he will cease to commit adultery — and that he will cease to
covet his neighbor's wife ! Aye, sir, there is nothing in the Con-
stitution to sanction any such outrage. Such an appropriation
would be unconstitutional.

Mr. Madison said in the convention that " it was wrong to ad-
mit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in
man." (3 Madison- Papers, 1769.) Of course it was wrong, It
was criminal and unpardonable. Thank God ! it was not done.
But Senators admit this "idea" daily. They take it from them-
selves, and then introduce it where Mr. Madison said it was
"wrong." But if it was "wrong" at the adoption of the Con-
stitution to do this thing, how much worse is it now ! There is
no instinct of patriotism, as there is no conclusion of reason,
which must not be against the abomination ; and yet, sir, it is al-
lowed to enter into these debates. Sometimes it stalks, and
sometimes it skulks ; but whether stalking or skulking, it must be
encountered with the same indignant rebuke, until it shall no
longer venture to show its head.

Putting aside, then, all objections that have been interposed,
whether proceeding from open opposition or from lukewarm sup-
port, the great question recurs — that question which dominates

15

this whole debate, how shall slavery be overthrown ? The answer
is three-fold : first, by the courts, declaring and applying the true
principles of the Constitution ; secondly, by Congress, in the
exercise of the powers which belong to it; and, thirdly, by the
people, through an amendment to the Constitution. Courts, Con-
gress, people, all may be invoked, and the occasion will justify
the appeal.

1. Let the appeal be made to the courts. But alas ! one of the
saddest chapters in our history has been the conduct of judges,
who have lent themselves to the support of slavery. Injunctions
of the Constitution, guarantees of personal liberty, and prohibi-
tions against its invasion, have all been forgotten. Courts, which
should have been asylums of liberty, have been changed into
strongholds of slavery, and the Supreme Court of the United
States, by a final decision as shocking to the Constitution as to
the public conscience, proclaimed itself the tutelary stronghold of
all. It has been part of the calamity of the times, that, under
the influence of slavery, justice, like Astraea of old, had fled. . But
now at last, in a regenerated Republic, with the power of slavery
waning, and the people rising in judgment against it, let us hope
that the judgments of courts may be reconsidered, and that the
powers of the Constitution in behalf of liberty may be fully exer-
cised, so that human bondage shall no longer find an unnatural
support from the lips of judges.

" and ancient frauds shall fail.

Returning Justice lift aloft her scale."

Sir, no court can afford to do an act of wrong. Its business is
justice ; and when, under any apology, it ceases to do justice, it
loses those titles to reverence which otherwise are so willingly
bestowed. There are instances of great magistrates who have
openly declared their disobedience to laws " against common right
and reason," and their names are mentioned with gratitude in the
history of jurisprudence. There are other instances of men hold-
ing the balance and the sword, whose names have been gathered
into a volume as "atrocious judges." If our judges, who have
cruelly interpreted the Constitution in favor of slavery, do not
come into the latter class, they clearly can claim no place among
those others who have stood for justice, like the rock on which the
sea breaks in idle spray. Vainly do you attempt to frame injustice
into a law, or to sanctify it by any judgment of court. From
Cicero we learn that " if laws were made merely by the ordinan-
ces of the people, the decrees of princes, or the sentences of judges,
then the setting up forged wills might be lawful, adultery might
be lawful." (be Legibns, Lib. I, § 16 ;) and Augustine tells us
with saintly authority, that what is unjust cannot be law. Every

16

law and every judgment of court, to be binding, must have at its
back the everlasting, irrepealable law of God. Doubtless the
model decision of the American Bench, destined to be quoted
hereafter with the most honor, because the boldest in its conform-
ity with the great principles of humanity and social order, was
that of the "Vermont judge, who refused to surrender a fugitive
slave until his pretended master could show a title-deed from the
Almighty.

But the courts have no longer any occasion for such boldness.
They need not step outside the Constitution. It is only needed
that they should follow just principles in its interpretation. Let
them be guided by a teacher like Edmund Burke> who spoke as
follows :

"Men cannot covenant themselves out of their rights and their duties;
nor by any other means can arbitrary power be conveyed to any
man. Those who give to others such rights, perform acts that are
void as they are given" * * * * * *

• * " Those who give and those who receive arbitrary

power are alike criminal, and there is no man but is bound to
resist it to the best of his power, wherever it shows its face in the
world. It is a crime to bear it wherever it can be rationally sha-
ken off." — Speech on Impeachment of Warren Hastings.

Or, let them be guided by that other teacher, Lord Chatham,
when he said :

"With respect to the decisions of the courts of justice, I am far
from denying their due weight and authority ; yet placing them
^in the most respectable view, I will consider them, not as law,
but as an evidence of the law ; and before they can arrive at even
that degree of authority, it must appear that they are founded in,
and confirmed by, reason ; that they are supported by precedents,
taken from good and moderate times; that they do not contradict
any positive law ; that they are submitted to without reluctance
by the people; that they are unquestioned by the legislature,
(which is equivalent to a tacit confirmation) ; and what, in my
judgment is by far the most important, that they do not violate the
spirit of the Constitution." — Speech of Lord Chatham in 1770, with
regard to the proceedings on the Middlesex Election.

If courts were thus inspired, it is easy to see that slavery would
disappear under their righteous judgment.

2. But unhappily the courts will not perform the duty of the
hour, and we must look elsewhere. An appeal must be made to
Congress ; and here, as has been fully developed, the powers are
ample, unless in their interpretation you surrender in advance to
slavery. By a single brief statute, Congress may sweep slavery
out of existence. Patrick Henry saw and declared that, under

17

the influence of u growing detestation of slavery and the increas-
ing " urbanity" of the people, this must be expected, while all the
capacious war powers proclaim trumpet- tongued that it can be
done constitutionally, and the peace powers now echo back the
war powers.

Of course we encounter here again the " execrable " pretension
of property in man, and the claim of "just compensation" for the
renunciation of Heaven- defying wrongs. But this pretension is
no more applicable to abolition by act of Congress than to aboli-
tion by an amendment of the Constitution ; so that if the claim of
"just compensation" can be discarded in one case it can be in the
other. But the votes that have already been taken in the Senate
on the latter proposition testify that it is discarded. Sir, let the
" execrable" pretension never again be named, except for condem-
nation, no matter how or when it appears or what the form it may
take. Let the " idea," which was originally branded as so
" wrong" that it could not find a place in the Constitution, never
find a place in our debates.

But even if Congress be not prepared for that single decisive
measure which shall promptly put an end to this whole question
and strike slavery to death, there are other mensures by which
this end may be hastened. The towering Upas may be girdled,
even if it may not be felled at once to the earth. Already, by
acts of Congress, slavery has been abolished in the national capi-
tal and in the national territories. But this is not enough.

The fugitive slave bill, conceived in iniquity and imposed upon
the North as a badge of subjugation, may be repealed.

The coastwise slave trade may be deprived of all support in the
statute book.

The traffic in human beings, as an article of " commerce among
the States," may be extirpated.

And, above all, that odious rule of evidence, so injurious to
justice and discreditable to the country, excluding the testimony
of colored persons in national courts, may be abolished.

And there is one other thing which must done. The enlistment
of colored persons must be encouraged by legislation in every
possible form ; for enlistment is emancipation. That contract by
which the soldier-slave promises service at the hazard of life, like
the contract of marriage, fixes the equality of the parties, which
Congress, for the national defense, and the national character also,
must sacredly maintain.

All these things at least may be done, and, when they are done,
Heaven and earth will be glad, for they will see an assurance that
all will be done.

18

But even these will not be enough. The people must be sum-
moned to confirm the whole work. It is for them to put the cap-
stone upon the sublime structure. An amendment of the Consti-
tution may do what courts and Congress decline to do, or, even
should they act, it may cover their action with its panoply. Such an
amendment, in any event, will give completeness and permanence
to emancipation and bring the Constitution into avowed harmony
with the Declaration of Independence. Happy day, long wished
for, destined to gladden those beautified spirits who have labored
on earth to this end, but died without the sight.

And yet let us not indiscreetly take counsel of our hopes. From
the nature of the case such an amendment cannot be consummated
at once. Time must intervene, with opportunities of opposition. It
can pass Congress only by a vote of two-thirds of both branches.
And when it has passed both branches of Congress it must be
adopted by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the States. Even
under the most favorable circumstances it is impossible to say
when it can become part of the Constitution. Too tardily, I fear,
for all the good that is sought. Therefore I am not content with
this measure alone. It postpones till to-morrow what ought to be
done to-day; and I much fear that it may be made an apology for
indifference to other propositions, which are of direct practical
significance ; as if it were not unpardonable to neglect for a day
the duties we owe to Human Rights.

"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
_ Creeps in this petty pace irom day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time ;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death."

For myself let me confess that, in presence of the mighty events
of the day, I feel how insignificant is any individual, whether
citizen or Senator; and yet, humbly longing to do my part, I can-
not consent to put off till to-morrow what ought to be done to day.
Beyond my general desire to see an act of universal emancipation
that shall at once and forever settle this great question, so that it
may no longer be the occasion of strife between us, there are two
other ideas which are ever present to my mind as a practical
legislature : first, to strike at slavery wherever I can hit it ; and
secondly, to clean the statue book of all existing supports of slavery,
so that it may find nothing there to which it may cling for life.
To do less than this at the present moment, when slavery is still
menacing, would be an abandonment of duty.

So long as a single slave continues anywhere beneath the flag
of the Republic I am unwilling to rest. Too well 1 know the
vitality of slavery with its infinite capacity of propagation, and
how little slavery it takes to make a slave State with all the cruel

19

pretensions of slavery. The down of a single thistle is full of all
possible thistles, and a single fish is said to contain two hundred
millions of eggs, so that the whole sea might be stocked from its
womb.

The founder of political science in modern times, writer as
well as statesman, Machiavelli, in his most instructive work, the
Discourses on Livy, has a chapter entitled, "To have long life in
a republic, it is neccessary to draw it back often to its origin : "
and in the chapter he shows how the original virtue in which a
republic was founded becomes so far corrupted, that, in the pro-
cess of time, the body-politic must be destroyed ; as in the case
of the natural body, where, according to the doctors of medicine,
there is someting added daily which perpetually requires cure,
quod quotedie aggregatur ahquid, quod quandoque indiget curatione.
He teaches under this head that republics are brought back to
their origin, and the principles in which they were founded, by
pressure without where prudence fails within, and he affirms that
the destruction of Rome by the Gauls was necessary that the
republic might have a new birth, and thus acquire new life and
new virtue, all of which ensued when the barbarians had been
driven back. The illustration, perhaps is fanciful, but there is
wisdom in the counsel, and now the time has come for its applica-
tion. The Gauls are upon us, not, however, from a distance, but
domestic Gauls, and we, too, may profit by the occasion to secure
for the Republic a new l)irth, that it may acquire new life and
new virtue. Happily, in our case the way is easy, for it is only
neccessary to carry the Republic back to its baptismal vows, and
the declared sentiments of its origin. There is the Declaration
of Independence : let its solemn promises be redeemed, There is
the Constitution: let it speak, according to the promises of the
Declaration. ,

Mr. President, the immediate question now before us is on the
proposition to prohibit slavery everywhere throughout the whole
country by constitutional amendment; and here I hope to be
indulged for a moment with regard to the form which it should
take. A new text of the Constitution cannot be considered too
carefully even in this respect, especially when it embodies a new
article of freedom. Here for a moment we are performing some-
thing of that duty which belongs to the conditores imperii, placed
foremost by Lord Bacon among the actors in human affairs, and
"words" become "things." From the magnitude of the task we
may naturally borrow circumspection, and I approach this part of
the question with suggestion rather than argument.

Let me say frankly that I should prefer a form of expression
different from that which has the sanction of the committee. They

20

have selected what was intended for the old Jeffersonian ordinance
sacred in our history, although, let me add, they have not imitated
it closely. But I must be pardoned if I venture to doubt the ex-
pediency of perpetuating in the Constitution .language which, if it
have any signification, seems to imply that " slavery or involuntary
servitude " may be provided " for the punishment of crime." It is
supposed that there was a reason for this language when it was
first employed, but that reason no longer exists. There can be no
reason why slavery should not be forbidden positively and without
exception, especially as " imprisonment " cannot be confounded
with this " peculiar " wrong. If my desires could prevail, I would
put aside the ordinance on this occasion, and find another form.
I knownothing better than these words:

"•All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can
hold another as a slave : and the Congress shall have the power to
make all laws necessary and proper to carry this declaration in
to effect everywhere within the United States and the jurisdiction
thereof. "

The words in the latter part supersede all questions as to the
applicability of the declaration to the States. But the distinctive
words in this clause assert the equality of all persons before the law.
The language may be new in our country, but it is already well
known in history. And here let me show how it has grown to its
present place of authority. We must repair for a moment to
France.

The first constitution adopted by France, September, 1701, in
the throes of revolution, was preceded by a Declaration of Rights,
which, after setting forth that " ignorance, forgetfulness, or con-
tempt of the rights of man are the sole causes of public evils and
of the corruption of Governments. " undertakes to announce " the
natural rights of man, inalienable and sacred, to the end that
this Declaration, constantly present to all the members of the
social system, may without cessation recall their rights and duties ;
to the end that the acts of the legislative power and those of the
executive power capable at each instant of being compared with
the object of every political institution, may be more respected ;
to the end that the claims of citizens, founded on simple and in-
contestable principles, may turn always to the maintainance of the
constitution, and the happiness of all." After this too elaborate
preamble the declaration begins with an article, which has a gen-
erality of expression, not unlike that of our own Declaration of
Independence.

" Art. 1. Men are born and continue free and equal in rights. '

21

Next came the Constitution of June, 1793, which after a pre-
amble, sets forth a series of articles, beginning with three, as fol-
lows :

"Art. 1. The object of society is the common happiness. Govern-
ment is instituted to guaranty to man the enjoyment of his natural
and imprescriptible rights.

" 2. These rights are equality, liberty, security, property.

" 3. All men are equal by nature and before the law. "

Here the declaration in question begins to show itself. Men
are equal by nature and before the law.

This same Constitution concludes with what is called a guar-
anty of rights, in the following article :

"Art. 122. The Constitution guarantees to all Frenchmen
equality, liberty, security, property, the public debt, the free ex-
ercise of worship, common instruction, public assistance, the in-
definite liberty of the press, the right of petition, the right to as-
semble in public meetings, the enjoyment of all the rights of men. "

Then came the constitutional charter of June, 1814, following
the restoration of the Bourbons, which begins in the following
article :

"Art. 1. Frenchmen are, equal before the law, whatever may be
otherwise their title and ranks. "

This is followed by another, as follows :

" Art 4. Their individual liberty is equally guarantied, so that
nobody can be prosecuted or arrested except in cases provided for
by law, and in the form which it prescribes, .

The constitutional charter of August, 1830, at the installation
of Louis Philippe as king, with La Fayette by his side, contains the
articles already quoted from that of Louis XVIII, in the same
words, placing the declaration of equality before the law in the
front.

And this article has been adopted in the charters of Belgium,
Italy, Greece ; so that it is now the well-known expression of a
commanding principle of human rights.

It will be felt at once that this expression; " equality before the
law" gives precision to that idea of human rights which is enun-
ciated in our Declaration of Independence. The sophistries of

22

Calhoun, founded on the obvious inequalities of body and mind,
are all overthrown by this simple statement, which, though bor-
rowed latterly from France, is older than French history. The
curious student will find in the ancient Greek of Herodotus a sin-
gle word which supplies the place of this phrase, when he tells us
that " the government of the many has the most beautiful name of
iGovojjiia" or equality before the law. (Book 3, p. 80.) The father
of history was right. The name is most beautiful ; but it is not a
little singular that, in an age when equality before the law was
practically unknown, the Greek language, so remarkable for its
flexibility and comprehensiveness, supplied a single word, not to
be found in modern tongues, to express an idea which has been
authoritatively recognized only in modern times. Such a word in
our own language to express that equality of rights which is
claimed for all mankind might have surperseded some of the criti-
cism to which this declaration has been exposed.

Enough has been said to explain the orign of the expression
which is now proposed. Though traced to distant antiquity and
now adopted in various countries, it derives its modern authority
from France, where it is the " well-ripened fruit " of an unpre-
cedented experience in the discussion of great problems of politi-
cal science. Naturally, it does not come from England ; for the
idea itself finds little favor in that hierarchical kingdom. In
France equality prevails more than liberty. In England liberty
prevails more than equality. Here among us both should find a
home, and such a declaration as I now propose, embodying liberty
and equality, will keep the double idea perpetually in the public
mind and conscience, " to warn, to comfort, and command." The
denial of Liberty in the rebel States begins with a denial of
Equality, so that our work is not completely done without the as-
sertion of both principles.

Should the Senate not incline to this form, there is still another
which I would suggest, as follows :

" Slavery shall not exist anywhere within tbe United States or
the jurisdiction thereof ; and the Congress shall have power to
make all laws neccessary and proper to carry this prohibition into
effect. "

This is simple, and avoids all language which is open to ques-
tion. The word " slavery " is explicit, and describes precisely
what it is proposed to blast. There is no doubt with regard to
its signification. It cannot be confounded with " the punishment
of crime:" for imprisonment is not slavery; nor can any punish-
ment take the form of a wrong which stands by itself, peculiar.

23

terrible, outrageous. Therefore nothing about punishment should
find a place in the rule which we ordain.

But if the Senate is determined to adhere to the Jeffersonian
ordinance, then I prefer that it should be the ordinance actually,
and not as reported by the committee. And I would complete
the work by expelling from the Constitution all those words
which have been misconstrued, perverted and tortured to a false
support of slavery.

But while desirous of seeing the great rule of freedom which
we are about to ordain embodied in a text which shall be like the
precious casket to the more precious treasure, yet I confess that I
feel humbled by my own endeavors. And whatever may be the
judgement of the Senate, I am consoled by the thought that the
most homely text containing such a rule will be more beautiful far
than any words of poetry or eloquence, and that it will endure to
be read with gratitude when the rising dome of this Capitol, with
the statue of Liberty which surmounts it, has crumbled to dust.

CHAPIN, BROMELL & SCOTT, Cheap & Prompt Job Printers, 8 Spruoe St., N. Y.

i

TIKE OiEtlO-IlSr^JL,

ANTI-SLAYERY AGITATORS.

" There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to
see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery." — George Washington,
April 12th, 1786.

"The scheme, my dear Marquis which you propose as a precedent
to encourage the emancipation of the black people in this country from
the state of bondage in which they are held, is a striking evidence of
the benevolence of your heart." — Washington to Lafayette, 1783.

"It is the most earnest wish of America to see an entire stop for-
ever put to the wicked, cruel, and unnatural trade in slaves." — Meet-
ting at Fairfax, Va, July, ISth, 1774, presided over by Washington.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just. His jus-
tice cannot sleep forever. " — Jefferson's Notes on Slavery inVirginia,
1782.

"The King of Great Britain has waged cruel war against human na-
ture itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty, in the
persons of a distant people who never offended him ; captivating them
and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur mis-
erable death in their transportation hither." — Jefferson's Original
Draft of the Declaration of Independance.

"After the year 1800 of the Christion era, there shall be neither
slavery nor involuntary servitade in any of the said States" (all of
the territories then belonging to the United States). — Jefferson s Ordi-
nance of 1787, unanimously approved by Congress and signed by Wash-
ington.

"We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most en-
lightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion
ever exercised by man over man." — James Madison.

"We have found that this evil has preyed upon the very vitals ef
the Union and has been prejudicial to all the States in which it has
existed." — James Monroe.

" The tariff was only the pretext, and disunion and a Southern Con-
federacy the real object. The next pretext will be the neg ro or sla-
very question. " — Andrew Jackson, May, 1833.

" Sir, I envy neither the heart nor the head of that man from the
North who rises here to defend slavery on principle." — John Randolph
of Roanoke,

" The people of Carolina form two classes, the rich and the poor.
The poor are very poor ; the rich, who have slaves to do thei r work,
give them no employment. The little they get is laid out in brandy,
not in books and newswapers ; hence they know nothing of the compare
ative blessings of our country, or of the dangers which threaten it ;
therefore they care nothing about it. " — General Francis Marion to
Baron De Kalb*

7/, Iti??' 0W. # ~?<?9C